Appeal 3363315

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. The main issues in regard to which are the effects of the proposed development on a) the character and appearance of the area; and b) highway safety.

The appeal property is located in an attractive verdant residential area, dominated by unified front garden hedgerow boundaries enclosing lawned areas with other generous landscaping throughout. Parking courtyards and bays are predominantly to the rear or side of dwellings, including the appeal property which benefits from a single detached garage and additional parking space to the rear. These elements lead to a strong uniformed, open, green, cohesive quality to the street scene that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed vehicle access would result in the removal of the front boundary hedge and loss of the front lawn. Although the appellant has stated that they would provide additional planting, in this instance the displaced location thereof, removal of the soft lawn and the significant visual intrusion of a parked vehicle in the front garden would unacceptably erode the verdant charm of the street scene.

None of the examples cited are sufficiently comparable to the scheme before me, with the exception of Number [address] which, due to the loss of its front boundary hedge, results in an incongruous appearance, further emphasising the harm this type of development has on the street scene and wider area. I am in any case unaware of the planning status of any works that have been carried out.

The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan 2022 to 2039 (2024), and guidance contained in the SPD4: A Guide for [address] Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2012), which amongst other things, seek to ensure development respects the character and identity of the locality and complements the street scene.

The limited size of the proposed car park space would struggle to accommodate any sizeable vehicle that would not hamper or overhang the pedestrian footway. Several manoeuvres would be necessary for a vehicle to access and egress the site, increasing the likelihood of conflict between them and another vehicle or a pedestrian, with the added impedance to the free flow of traffic when a vehicle would need to stop in the carriageway to commence the parking manoeuvres. This would be further exacerbated by the active nature of the highway.

Consequently, there would be harm to highway safety contrary to Policy L7 of the Trafford Local Plan: [name] (2012), and guidance contained in SPD3: [name] and Design Supplementary Planning Document (2012). These require, amongst other things, new development to have regard for highway safety. The National Planning Policy Framework states planning permission should be refused if there is an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

I recognise the sustainability value of the installation of [name] (EV) chargers. However, I am not convinced that an EV charging point could not successfully be installed in or on the existing garage. It’s weight therefore as a benefit of the scheme would be very limited. The issues of building regulations and the Council’s conduct during the application process falls outside the scope of my assessment which must focus on the planning merits of the appeal.

For the reasons given above, the appeal proposals would conflict with the development plan and there are no sufficiently weighty material considerations to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.